Are volunteers good or bad for local government?

London 2012 volunteers help people find their way to events at the Olympic Games Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

This week, a feature on the local government network looked at the role and responsibilities of 'community champions'. The piece generated a lot of debate about how councils use volunteers, and the relationship between paid staff and unpaid helpers.

Journalist Tim Smedley wrote: "Helping communities to help themselves is one way to describe it; replacing professional work with unpaid, unqualified volunteers is another."

In the comment thread, HanBanana3said: "I'm not convinced why businesses (and councils do sell themselves as that now) aren't prepared to pay people for their time and skills. What sort of training opportunities are these volunteers being given in return? Remember people can't live on air, so they need to have an income somewhere else before they can volunteer in their free time."

But bEdwardsdisagreed: "I think it's a great idea. I have found that volunteers are more trusted as they are not motivated by material gain, resulting in a collaborative relationship that is beneficial to all."

What do you think? Should councils treat their volunteer staff better? Are community champions putting full-time professional roles in danger while authorities are under pressure to cut costs?

Vote now in our poll and share your thoughts in the comment thread below.This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Join the local government network for comment, analysis and the latest jobs direct to you

49%

Good – volunteers help to provide public services when money is tight

51%

Bad – the work of volunteers comes at the expense of paid staff with professional expertise